The Supreme Court of India recently allowed Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd., a car-sharing platform, to pursue a statutory appeal against GST assessment orders relating to the financial year 2019–20. The Court granted the relief after the Rajasthan High Court disposed of the company’s writ petitions without granting liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy.
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 8920–8921/2026, which challenged the High Court’s orders declining to consider Zoomcar’s challenge to GST notifications that extended the time limit for passing assessment orders. The High Court had disposed of the writ petitions along with the challenge to the consequent assessment orders dated July 23, 2024 and August 8, 2024.
Submissions Before the Supreme Court
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Prakash Shah requested the Court to permit Zoomcar to file an appeal against the assessment orders. He pointed out that in similar cases the Rajasthan High Court had allowed assessees to avail the statutory remedy, but it did not grant such liberty in the present matter.
After considering the submission, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy before the appropriate appellate authority and disposed of the special leave petitions.
The Court observed:
“We dispose of both these petitions permitting the petitioner to prefer an appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority… We grant four weeks’ time to the petitioner to prefer a Statutory Appeal…”
Challenge Before the Rajasthan High Court
Before the High Court, Zoomcar challenged notifications issued under Section 168A of the CentralGoods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. These notifications extended the time limit for passing orders under Section 73(10) for FY 2019–20 by invoking force majeure powers.
Zoomcar also challenged adjudication orders dated July 23, 2024 and August 8, 2024, which confirmed a tax demand along with interest and penalty.
High Court Declined to Entertain the Challenge
The Rajasthan High Court declined to examine the challenge because proceedings concerning the validity of such notifications remain pending before the Supreme Court. The High Court observed that the outcome of those proceedings would govern the present case and therefore disposed of the writ petitions.
However, the High Court did not grant the petitioner liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy.
Limited Grievance Raised Before the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Prakash Shah limited the challenge to the absence of liberty to file an appeal. He submitted that in similar matters decided by the same High Court, taxpayers had received express permission to file appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act, but the High Court denied such liberty in the present case.
He also informed the Court that the High Court rejected a modification application seeking similar relief.
Four Weeks Granted to File Appeal
The Supreme Court granted four weeks to Zoomcar to file the statutory appeal. The Court also clarified that the appellate authority’s decision will remain subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings concerning the validity of the notifications extending the limitation period.
Appearance
For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Prakash Shah; Advocates Mihir Mehta, Suyog Bhave, Vishnu Kant, AOR.
For the Respondents: S.D. Sanjay, ASG; Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR; Advocates Aman Jha, Gaurav Arya, Mayank Pandey, Shalini Singh.
Case Details
Case Title: Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 8920–8921/2026.
Also Read: BNSS Pre – Cognizance Hearing Challenge: Madras HC notice.
